Search Results

A properly placed syringe provides access to a vein or tissue for fluid sampling or infusion. The safety syringe is designed for single use and has a needlestick protection feature. The risk of accidental needlesticks is reduced by a needle retraction system which is activated after the infusion procedure is completed.

The SafePro* Safety Syringe consists of a syringe assembly and a needle assembly. The device has a built-in safety feature to reduce the risk of accidental needlestick injuries.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and study details for the SafePro* Safety Syringe, based on the provided document:

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Study Details

1. Sample Size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Sample Size: 500 SafePro* Safety Syringes were evaluated by 50 participants. (Note: The document does not specify a separate "test set" from a "training set" in the context of typical AI/machine learning studies. This appears to be a performance validation study for a medical device).
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated, however, the study involved "participants" evaluating the syringes, implying prospective human use simulation. No country of origin for the participants is mentioned.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not applicable in the context of this device study. This was a simulated use study with direct observation of safety mechanism function and user feedback, not an expert-driven ground truth establishment for a diagnostic output. The "evaluators" (50 participants) provided feedback, but weren't "experts establishing ground truth."

3. Adjudication method for the test set:

   • Not applicable. The study involved direct observation of safety mechanism function and collection of user feedback. There is no mention of a process requiring adjudication among multiple observers for a single outcome.

4. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI or diagnostic imaging system. No human reader involvement in a diagnostic task is described.

5. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm. The device's safety mechanism operates independently (standalone) after activation, but it's not an "algorithm only" performance evaluation.

6. The type of ground truth used:

   • Direct Observation of Safety Mechanism Function: The absence of sharps injuries and failure of the safety mechanism during simulated use served as direct evidence of the device's protective function.
   • User Feedback/Satisfaction Surveys: Positive responses from participants regarding functional and performance aspects.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical medical device, not an AI system that requires a "training set." The development process would have involved internal testing and iterative design, but not a formally defined "training set" in the machine learning sense.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable, as no "training set" in the machine learning context is described.

Ask a specific question about this device